6 15. In the matter of reparations requested, the State manifested its will to include within a process of friendly settlement some of the reparations and to negotiate the content of others with the purpose of having recourse to the National Program of Restitution (hereinafter “NPR”). In the public hearing, the State reiterated the proposal regarding an economic reparation fixed in consideration of its economic situation and opposed the payment of the costs and expenses. 16. The Commission considered that the controversy had ceased regarding the violations that the State had acknowledged, as well as the facts upon which they are founded, for which it expressed that it positively valued the acknowledgement of liability made by the State and requested that the Court to include in its Judgment a detailed account of the facts of the case in its Judgment. In turn, the representatives argued that the State, by making an acknowledgement of liability accepted the full jurisdictional authority of the Court in order to examine the case. In this regard, it referred to the affirmation of the State in its response to the application in the sense that “the facts described by the [Commission] are susceptible to being acknowledged by the Court,” for which the representatives requested that the principle of estoppel be applied regarding the arguments of the State that contradict this affirmation. Likewise, they manifested that the acknowledgement of liability implicitly carries with it the acceptance of the facts and that the State did not make any type of clarification in this regard in the response to the application, which was the procedural moment to do so. Finally, they pointed out that given the issues raised by the State, the controversy regarding some points of fact, law, reparations, and costs and expenses would persist. 17. In accordance with Articles 56(2) and 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court,11 and in the exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, the Court can determine if a recognition of international liability made by a defendant State offers a sufficient base, in the terms of the American Convention, to continue the hearing of the merits and to determine the eventual reparations, and costs and expenses.12 18. Due to the fact that processes before this Court refer to the protection of human rights, a question of international public order that transcends the will of the parties, the Tribunal must ensure that the acts of acknowledgement are acceptable for the ends that the Inter-American System of Human Rights (hereinafter “Inter-American System”) looks to satisfy. In this work, it is not limited only to verifying the formal conditions of the 11 In this regard, the Articles 56(2) and 58 of the Court Rules of Procedure of the Court establish that: Article 56. Discontinuance of a Case […] 2. If the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case or the claims of the alleged victims or their representatives, the Court shall decide, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case, whether to accept such acquiescence, and rule upon its juridical effects. In that event, the Court shall determine the corresponding reparations and costs. Artícle 58. Continuation of a Case. Bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, the Court may decide to continue the consideration of a case notwithstanding the existence of the condition indicated in the preceding paragraphs. 12 Cf. Case Myrna Mack Chang V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 25 of November of 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 105; Case Radilla Pacheco V. México. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 23 of November of 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 60, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 24 of November of 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 28.